Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d 300.

86 citing documents.

Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
(Dahlin II), we held that (1) a party must seek a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals to preserve a peremptory removal issue, id.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The law-of-the-case doctrine is a rule of practice that once an issue is considered and adjudicated, that issue should not be reexamined in that court or any lower court throughout the case.” n.7 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 867 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 867 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 300, 305 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
“[A] defendant’s failure to seek a writ of prohibition constitutes waiver of further appellate review ‘when the issue involves the right of peremptory removal.’ ” n.4 (Minn. 2013) (-05 (Minn. 2008)).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 851 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2014
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 851 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2014
“Where the language is plain and unambiguous, that plain language must be followed.”
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Although a rules advisory committee’s comment is not binding on the courts, such comments “ ‘are recognized as providing guidance which courts may follow.’ ” ().
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
The State is correct that a defendant’s failure to seek a writ of prohibition constitutes waiver of further appellate review “when the issue involves the right of peremptory removal.” -05 (Minn.2008) (emphasis added).
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
State v. Kuhlmann 806 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2011
ate had agreed to do, was not structural error); , 251 n. 6 (Minn.2010) (holding that error in continuing trial in the defendant’s absence was not structural error); (holding that correcting jury instructions while the district court was reading the instructions to the jury was not structural error); , 302 n. 4 (Minn.2008) (noting that the denial of the right to peremptorily remove a judge is not structural error); (allowing employee from the county attorney’s office to be present while the jury
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
See Shamrock Dev., (civil procedure); *49 (criminal procedure); (civil appellate procedure).
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
Ali argues that we effectively extended the collateral order doctrine to all criminal cases in a
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
“Where a Rule contains a permissive term, such as ‘may’ or ‘should,’ the conduct being addressed is committed to the personal and professional discretion of the judge or candidate in question.” Minn.Code of Judicial Conduct, Scope; -07 (Minn.2008).
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
[is] not the appropriate way for appellant to obtain review of the denial of his motion to remove.” , 725 n. 3 (Minn.2001) (); (stating that to preserve the peremptory-removal issue, a party must seek a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals).
State v. Randolph 800 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2011
Marriage of Ihde v. Ihde 800 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Ihde v. Ihde 800 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(relying on plain language of similar provision in Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 770 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009